Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2023 DIGILAW 1129 (AP)

Padala Satyanarayana v. Syed Shabrar

2023-07-26

V.GOPALA KRISHNA RAO

body2023
JUDGMENT : 1. Aggrieved by the order passed by the Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-X Addl. District Judge, Visakhapatnam at Anakapalle, whereby the Tribunal awarded an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- towards compensation to the claimant as against the claim of Rs.4,50,000/-, this instant appeal is preferred by the claimant for enhancement of compensation. 2. For the sake of convenience, both the parties in the appeal will be referred to as they are arrayed in the claim petition. 3. The claimant filed the claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 read with Rule 455 of the A.P.M.V. Rules, 1989 against the respondents praying the Tribunal to award an amount of Rs.4,50,000/- towards compensation for the injuries sustained by him in a motor vehicle accident that occurred on 27.04.2007. 4. Facts germane to dispose of the appeal may briefly be stated as follows: On 27.04.2007 the claimant was going home on a bicycle and when he reached near Bhavani Talkies Junction on N.H.5 road, Kasimkota village, a van bearing registration No.AP 16TW 8332 being driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner without blowing horn came from Tallapalem towards Visakhapatnam and dashed against the bicycle of the claimant, as a result, the claimant fell down and sustained grievous injuries. The police, Kasimkota P.S. registered a case in crime No.60 of 2007 for the offence under Section 337 of IPC and after completion of investigation, they laid a charge sheet against the driver of the offending van. The 1st respondent being owner and the 2nd respondent being insurer of the offending van are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to the claimant. 5. The 1st respondent was set ex parte. 6. The 2nd respondent/Insurance company filed a counter by denying the manner of accident. It is pleaded that the accident occurred due to gross negligence of the claimant, but not due to the negligence of the driver of the offending van and the driver of the offending van was not holding valid driving licence at the time of accident, as such, the Insurance company is not liable to pay any compensation. 7. Based on the above pleadings, the Tribunal settled the following issues for trial: 1. Whether the petitioner sustained injuries in motor accident on 27.04.2007 due to rash and negligent driving of van bearing No.AP 16TW 8332 by its driver as pleaded by petitioner? 2. 7. Based on the above pleadings, the Tribunal settled the following issues for trial: 1. Whether the petitioner sustained injuries in motor accident on 27.04.2007 due to rash and negligent driving of van bearing No.AP 16TW 8332 by its driver as pleaded by petitioner? 2. Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation, if so, what amount and from which of the respondents? 3. To what relief? 8. During the course of enquiry in the claim petition, on behalf of the claimant, P.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.A.1 to A.16 and Exs.X.1 and X.2 were marked. On behalf of the 2nd respondent, no oral or documentary evidence was adduced. 9. At the culmination of the enquiry, after considering the evidence on record and on appreciation of the same, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the accident occurred because of rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending van of the 1st respondent and accordingly, allowed the petition in part granting an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- towards compensation to the claimant with proportionate costs and interest at 7.5% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of payment by both the respondents. Being aggrieved by the impugned award, the claimant preferred the instant appeal for enhancement of compensation. 10. Heard learned counsels for both the parties and perused the record. 11. The grounds urged by the appellant/claimant are that the Tribunal failed to consider the medical bills in proper perspective and the Tribunal awarded meager compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- as against the claim of Rs.4,50,000/-. 12. Now, the points for determination are: 1) Whether the claimant is entitled enhancement of compensation as prayed for? and 2) Whether the order passed by the Tribunal needs any interference? 13. POINT Nos.1 and 2 : The claim petition is filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 claiming compensation for the injuries sustained by the claimant in a motor vehicle accident. The material on record reveals that immediately after the accident, a case was registered against the driver of the offending van. The material on record further reveals that the claimant sustained grievous injuries in the said accident. In order to prove the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending van, the claimant relied on the evidence of P.W.1. The material on record further reveals that the claimant sustained grievous injuries in the said accident. In order to prove the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending van, the claimant relied on the evidence of P.W.1. The evidence of P.W.1 coupled with Ex.A.1-first information report and Ex.A.3-charge sheet clearly proves that due to rash and negligent driving of the offending van, the accident occurred and in the accident, the petitioner sustained injuries. On appreciation of the evidence on record, the Tribunal also came to the same conclusion. Therefore, I do not find any legal flaw or infirmity in the said finding given by the Tribunal. 14. In order to prove the injuries sustained by him, the claimant relied on the evidence of P.W.2-doctor who treated the claimant in the hospital. The evidence of P.W.2 coupled with Ex.A.2-wound certificate goes to show that the claimant sustained one grievous injury and two simple injuries. Therefore, an amount of Rs.30,000/- is awarded for one grievous injury and Rs.6,000/- is awarded for two simple injuries @ Rs.3,000/- for each simple injury. 15. As per the evidence of P.W.2-doctor, the petitioner is suffering with 100% permanent disability. The Tribunal also came to the conclusion that the age of the petitioner was 82 years and at this age, it is very difficult for him to recover from ailments and mental illness due to head injury, and awarded an amount of Rs.84,000/- towards permanent disability, loss of earnings and pain and suffering. It is settled law that disability to a particular limb cannot be treated as disability to whole body. Therefore, on considering the evidence of P.W.2 coupled with Ex.A.2-wound certificate and Ex.X.1-certificate issued by P.W.2, the disability of the claimant is arrived at 25%. The income of the claimant was arrived at Rs.42,000/- p.a. Therefore, an amount of Rs.52,500/- (Rs.42,000/- x 25% x multiplier ‘5’) is awarded towards 25% disability sustained by the claimant. 16. The material on record reveals that the claimant was inpatient in the hospital from 27.04.2007 to 11.05.2007 in Seven Hills Hospital, Visakhapatnam and again he was admitted in INS Kalyani Military Hospital on 11.05.2007 and he was inpatient till 04.06.2007 and again he was re-admitted in the Military Hospital from 02.05.2008 to 12.05.2008. Therefore, an amount of Rs.5,000/- is awarded towards transportation charges and Rs.5,000/- is awarded towards nutrition of food and attendant charges. 17. Therefore, an amount of Rs.5,000/- is awarded towards transportation charges and Rs.5,000/- is awarded towards nutrition of food and attendant charges. 17. As stated supra, the claimant was aged 82 years at the time of accident. Due to severe head injury, he suffered mental agony and loss of comfort in life. Therefore, an amount of Rs.7,500/- is awarded towards mental agony and loss of comfort in life. 18. The claimant relied on Ex.A.9-bunch of medical bills. On considering Ex.A.9-medical bills, the Tribunal awarded an amount of Rs.1,16,000/- towards medical expenses. In all, the claimant is entitled to a compensation of Rs.2,22,000/-. I do not find any legal flaw or infirmity in awarding Rs.1,16,000/- towards medical expenses by the Tribunal. 19. It is not in dispute that the offending van of the 1st respondent was insured with the 2nd respondent/Insurance company, the policy was in force, and the driver of the offending van was having valid driving licence at the time of accident. Therefore, both the respondents are liable to pay the compensation to the claimant. 20. In the result, the appeal is partly allowed enhancing the compensation from Rs.2,00,000/- awarded by the Tribunal to Rs.2,22,000/-. The respondents are directed to deposit the enhanced compensation of Rs.22,000/-, with interest at 7.5% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of deposit as awarded by the Tribunal, before the Tribunal, within two months from the date of this judgment. On such deposit, the claimant is entitled to withdraw the enhanced compensation amount along with interest thereon. No order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in the appeals shall stand closed.